English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

A tracer study was conducted at the Duke Forest Site in Chapel Hill, North Carolina in January, 1995 to evaluate the ability of three short-term refined Gaussian dispersion models to predict the fate of volume source emissions under field study conditions. Study participants included the American Petroleum Institute (API), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the US Department of Energy (DOE), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC), and private consulting firms. The models evaluated were Industrial Source Complex--Short Term versions 2 and 3 (ISC2, ISC3) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regulatory Model Improvement Committee (AERMIC) model, AERMOD. All three models are based on the steady-state Gaussian plume dispersion equation, which predicts concentrations at downwind receptor locations when integrated over the distance between the source and receptor. Chemicals were released at known rates and measurements were taken at various points in the study field using Tedlar bag point sampling and open-path Fourier Transform infrared (OP-FTIR) monitoring. The study found that ISC and AERMOD underpredicted the measured concentrations for each dataset collected in the field study. ISC and AERMOD each underpredicted the OPFTIR dataset by a factor of approximately 1.6. ISC underpredicted the Tedlar{reg_sign} dataset by approximately 2.1, while AERMOD underpredicted by a factor of approximately 2.6. Regardless of source configuration or measurement technique used, under-prediction with respect to the measured concentration was consistently observed. This indicates that safety factors or other corrections may be necessary in predicting contaminant concentrations over the distances examined in this study, i.e., in the near field of less than 200 meters

A field study evaluation of short-term refined Gaussian dispersion models